:The third problem is a relatively minor one, and it relates to your use of the term "we". :) Wikipedia has a one-user, one-account policy. When you have an account that is created to represent a group, you have what we call a "role account". You can read more about those at the Wikimedia page [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account here]. Please consider assigning one individual to this account and, if necessary, registering additional accounts for other members of your group. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
:The third problem is a relatively minor one, and it relates to your use of the term "we". :) Wikipedia has a one-user, one-account policy. When you have an account that is created to represent a group, you have what we call a "role account". You can read more about those at the Wikimedia page [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account here]. Please consider assigning one individual to this account and, if necessary, registering additional accounts for other members of your group. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
== Categorising Commons images ==
In reference to the question you posed on [[User talk:Xenocidic]]: according to [[Wikipedia:Commons#Categorization]], we're not supposed to categorise Commons images on Wikipedia. But I don't know how up to date this how-to is. Cheers. --[[User:Salvador Barley|Salvador Barley]] ([[User talk:Salvador Barley|talk]]) 12:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
Hi. There are two reasons to remove it. First of all, the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association displays a prominent copyright notice. In order to print material verbatim from them, we would either need for them to display a release under the terms of GFDL on their website or to give permission to the Wikimedia foundation for this material to be released under the GFDL. It is important that the release be compatible with our license, as hosting material on Wikipedia not only gives Wikipedia permission to display it, but it also gives our users the right to modify and re-use it, commercially or otherwise, as long as proper credit is given. There is more information about how to follow up on those in the links at the article's talk page, under donating materials. However, even if Wikipedia were assured of permission to run this material, it would likely be inappropriate for inclusion. While a section briefly describing the constitution may be appropriate, particularly if it touches on especially important points, reproducing the entire constitution unbalances the article and ascribes the constitution undue importance (please see the guideline on "undue weight"). Please remember that the primary purpose of an article on Wikipedia is to give information to a general readership. While specialized detail is important to some readers, it is far more appropriate to provide an off-Wikipedia link to such details as an organization's constitution than to host it here, as suggested at Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. While I have no doubt that last link is referring more to national constitutions than organizational constitutions, it actually mentions constitutions specifically as something that should be hosted elsewhere.
If you have duplicated text in this article from any other source, please identify it. Unless it is from a source that has a license compatible with Wikipedia's, it needs to be altered or removed for legal reasons. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't intend to remove images, and my apologies that I did so. The section was long enough that I didn't realize I had. With regards to the question about other material, please do let us know if you've used other sources for sentences and phrases. As I mentioned at the article talk page, it concerns me that there are phrases like "an effective legislative program in the Congress to promote and protect the interests of rural carriers" which are clearly identifiable from other sources. (Since leaving that note, I've realized that this is the probable source for that text, though I'm not sure. It does, again, carry the copyright notice.) Wikipedia has to take copyright concerns very seriously, both for the protection of copyright holders and of the project itself. Material does need to be rewritten in our own words to avoid these concerns. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this; I'm working on it. I appreciate the tone you take in correcting me. It's refreshing conpared to some of the other Wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've certainly dedicated an impressive amount of effort to that article! And I'm sorry if you've felt "bitten" by some of the comments that have come your way. New contributors are important, and I think it's too easy to forget how steep the learning curve can be. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kenworth article copyvio notice.
Well, of course, I'd like the issue resolved and for it to just go away. :) But, alas, it's just a bit more complicated than that. The first thing I'm going to do is rewriting that "I've authored..." text. The problem, is that when the warning went up, I was under the impression that I had to give up copyrights on it. Honestly, it should never have been an issue in the first place. I wish I could pull it up out of my memory banks, but I remember reading an article here at Wikipedia a week or two before I wrote the Kenworth section, that was almost fully posted verbatim from a website whose author did the exact same thing (hence why I did it, even his wording "I've autored a condensed and derivative work for the <insert article name here> article on Wikipedia" text was written the exact same way - and there wasn't any issue there). I don't want to give up copyright on the work, but at the same time, I feel as though I'm almost forced to.
I was even shocked that the warning even came up, and felt a little disrespected and dismayed when WikiDon posted the copyvio notice (and his rather harsh tone in subsequent postings on my talk page). I come from a business administration background having been a restaurant assistant manager and shift supervisor, and my training tells me to properly investigate any issue before making any judgments. WikiDon improperly investigated the situation, and went on the attack both on my talk page and the KW article without giving my userpage a glance, nor that notice on the bottom of the Pacific History page on my website.
I apologize for the rant and babble, but that's part of why I got frustrated. I strive to contribute to the best of my abilities, and when another user goes on the attack without ever getting to know me first, I tend to get a little upset and go on the defensive.
Hi. I understand your frustration. :) It's obvious that you were trying to comply with policy, to get the information out here. It's quite probable that the article that inspired you would have created problems if it had been noticed. I wish you could remember it, too, so that I could just make sure that the "i"s are dotted and "t"'s crossed. I've been donating most of my Wikipedia time to addressing the backlog at WP:CP for some time now (I'm sure it feels like a much longer time than it is!), and I know that on my end it sometimes feels like pointless hoop-jumping, but it's worth it if the end-result is a copyright-violation free website. :)
I'm not sure from what you say here if you realize that you're releasing control of your words anyway when you post them on Wikipedia. Under the terms of GFDL, anything you contribute here may be modified or redistributed in any way, commercially or otherwise, so long as authorship credit is maintained. You may realize that; it may just be the text on the website, not the derivative version, that you don't want to release under GFDL. Forgive me if I'm pointing out something you already know quite well; I just wanted to be sure that was clear. :)
If you're comfortable releasing the derivative version on Wikipedia, then it should be sufficient to just add to the note already on your website something along the lines of "In December, 2007, I authored a condensed and derivative form of this for the Kenworth article on Wikipedia. That condensed and derivative form is irrevocably released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (I would make "Kenworth" link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenworth&oldid=178070103, which is the version you contributed.) If you want to be particularly careful to protect the original, you might expand it to note that "The version displayed here remains under full protection of US copyright."
If you decide to go that way, just let me know, and I'll make a note at the talk page, remove the copyright notice and mark the matter resolved. :)
Alternatively, you can just write to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. The boilerplate recommended here is available at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Given the uniqueness of your situation, I would explain in the letter that you are the author of the website, that you have incorporated text directly from the website, but that you don't wish to release the version on your website under GFDL, even though you are comfortable releasing the version on Wikipedia.
That communication I'm not authorized to handle. Only certain Wikimedia volunteers and employees can address that. General observation suggests it would be cleared within a week--sometimes within a day or two. Someone from the committee would make a note on the article's talk page that the situation was resolved, and then the copyright notice would be removed and the issue marked resolved.
I'm sorry that you felt the other user was rude and didn't give the matter proper attention. I agree that his communications with you on your talk page don't fit in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Sometimes we have users who are trying blatantly to get around copyright laws to get material on Wikipedia, but this is obviously not the case with you. While it might be desirable to further clarify the situation here, it's apparent that you're operating in good faith and attempting to make a valuable contribution to the article. So, as one of Wikipedia's many unpaid and (not particularly important) representatives, please allow me to apologize that you were made to feel that way and instead to thank you for your contribution. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that could possibly fail to do it. :) I've removed the copyvio notice, and I'm off to mark this matter "resolved" at the copyright problem notice board. Thank you so much, and, again, I'm sorry that the experience was so frustrating for you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of article on T.J. Parsell
Hello:
My name is T.J. Parsell. You deleted a page that mentioned me and my book, Fish: A Memoir of a Boy in a Man's Prison.
Why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.124.11 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article T. J. Parsell was deleted for copyright problems. It was copied completely from this source, which carries a copyright notice and hence is not usable as a source of sentences or phrases on Wikipedia without an assertion of permission. (Note that a lack of copyright notice is not sufficient to clear permission for that; the material needs to display a license compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL.) A tag was placed on the article notifying interested parties how to either (a) arrange for the release of material or (b) revise the material to fall in line with copyright policies. The tag indicates that Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. However, while the article was tagged on May 28th, due to a backlog at the copyright investigation page it was not actually deleted until nearly a month later, on June 26th. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article deleted was created by user:Howdidyouknow, who claims her name is "Stephanie" and hence is very unlikely to be you. :) Even if she had claimed to be the copyright holder, though, we would have asked her to produce evidence of that, as Wikipedia has no user identification requirements for log-in, and any user can create an account under any name. Of use in such situations are the directions for "using copyrighted works from others", if contributors are not the copyright holder of the material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if they are. If you wanted to include the material, for instance, aside from the potential problems of "conflict of interest", you'd need to go through one of the steps at "donating copyrighted materials" to confirm that you have authority to release the information here and understand that you are releasing it by GFDL, for modification or reuse (even commercial) so long as attribution is retained. This is commonly done through a note on the original website or a letter to the communications committee, as set out there. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures from Picasa
Hi,
im also a registered member on Picasa. The picture you mentioned about are from the user mohsin's album and I did ask for permission before using them on wikipedia. If hes doesnt have a problem with me using them why would anyone else? If I am asked my the user to delete them from wiki I would be more tham happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, yes sure, ill get in touch with mohsin asap and get that done but i think ill be needing a hand when it comes to this URL etc etc thing as i aint too good with all that. I would really apprciate your help! So please kindly instruct me step by step on what i need to do & i will get in done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, looks like i have lots to do lol but dont worry ill get it all done asap. Just want to know how long do i have to do all that?
Good job
Hey, I've just seen you around CSD discussions and on Commons and wanted to say hi. I know how discouraging speedy deletion work can be, when you earn the ire of all those whose articles you smight, but I think you're doing a great job and really giving articles a chance wherever you can. Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything I can ever do to help. :-) Dcoetzee19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :D Occasionally there is ire, but fortunately most folks are reasonable once the situation is explained. I do very much appreciate the peer approval, and the door swings both ways. My talk page is (almost) always open. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andew Wilson (theologian)
Hi, Xenocidic recommended you as an administrator who would be a good, neutral, experienced party to consult in a contentious AfD. Currently, the subj. article is reverting versions repeatedly, although I don't believe any editor to have been in 3RR violation yet. Further, it has been observed that positions have solidified, which I believe substantially true, and the time for the AfD has expired, yet it not been closed.
There are five involved editors: myself and Exucmember support a version of the article which has as much RS infomation as possible about Andrew Wilson's major work, World Scripture. Hrafn, Crusio, and DJ Clayworth favor deleting that information for various reasons, including that it is a coatrack, not neutral/spam, and fails to demonstrate sufficient notability. I believe all parties would benefit from an admin without any previous involvement in the topic to look at the issues and revisions involved, render an appropriate judgement, and close the AfD. Would you be willing to do this for us? Thanks!
Hallelujah! I'm connected. I wanted to note very quickly that my internet connection has been iffy for a few days. I'm looking into it. I may not be able to help today, not only for poor internet connection but because it is a holiday weekend in these parts and I am preparing for guests, but if I don't think I can address it immediately I'll try to leave a note to let you know. :) If I feel I can tease consensus out of it, and I can't do it today, I will try to do it (if somebody doesn't first) as soon as I can. Unfortunately, it can take me quite a long time to read through and evaluate these things. I once spent two hours on a single AfD! --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have looked at it, and I see that it is indeed quite contentious, and it looks like it could benefit from swift handling. I have limited time, as I said, and my connection is spotty at the moment, so I'm looking for another administrator who will be good, neutral and experienced to take a look at it. :) In addition to my limited time at the moment, I am a little concerned that even your neutral summary above might seem to bring my neutrality into question. For that reason, I think it would be better for an uninvolved party to ask. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best to set aside my participation and present the arguments neutrally, but I would be a poor judge of my own success. I appreciate your looking into it, and thank you for your decision to seek another administrator's assistance. I am simply seeking A neutral, experienced AfD administrator, and you were simply the first one I was told to seek out. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you presented your case. :) I think the danger is that when an AfD is contentious, it is particularly necessary to avoid the appearance of starting with a side. If perchance you do approach somebody else, I think perhaps you would do better to eliminate your synthesis--the bit of "There are five...demonstrate sufficient notability" and just let the admin read the debate. My first thought didn't pan out--admin on wikibreak--so I am moving on. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got your message, MRG, and I've just completed closing the AFD. I would appreciate your opinion on my close (for example, if you were going to delete the article...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer16:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! :D It's my goal to clear out that backlog, and I plan to keep pounding at it until it's done. Today or tomorrow maybe? Depends entirely on how complicated the things are ahead of me. Revising material can sometimes take me a long time. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Safesquid
Hi. I see you just "notability" tagged the newly re-created SafeSquid article. I was working with the creator briefly and think he found a couple of reliable sources after the previous article was speedied for being a copy-vio. The copy-vio issues are also now resolved, by the way, so I'm not sure why the creator added the GFDL tag. Anyway, I think the article does (BARELY) meet notability guidelines so I've removed your tag. I won't complain if you decide to put it up for deletion, though, since I think the article would benefit from closer inspection by a wider range of editors. Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not putting it up for deletion. As I explained to him at his talk page, the tag is to encourage the addition of reliable sources to verify its notability. Currently, I don't see that the article makes any real assertion of notability, and I believe that pending the inclusion of reliable, secondary sources that reference the product, the tag should remain. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, am confused. I didn't believe an assertion of notability was necessary, merely signficant third party coverage. There are a number of third party references provided, of which I think two are non-trivial and sufficiently reliable - although only barely as I previously mentioned. I also wasn't aware that the notability tag helped bring other editors to the page as you suggest - does it automatically put the article in a category that other editors might be watching? If so, feel free to re-add it as this article needs attention. What it doesn't need is a tag that might just put people off when the article's only starting out, and WP:Note is a serious enough flaw in an article that it might have that effect and that effect alone.
PS I'm watching this page if you want to comment further. Ultimately, though, I'm not bothered about the article - I'm just trying to help a relatively inexperienced editor do a better job and think he's made enough progress with the article that it deserves slightly less harsh treatment. GDallimore (Talk) 14:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the notability tag puts the article into Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Looking at the sources cited, the reference here and here look trivial to me, especially the latter, which is one name in a list. This is not a WP:RS for purposes of notability, as it is a wiki and a how-to-guide and does not address notability. Thesesources don't look independent, as they seem to be connected to the product. Which two did you think were non-trivial and sufficiently notable? Perhaps I'm missing something.
I agree that the notability tag can be intimidating to new contributors, which is why I explained its function at the user's talk page. It's not my desire to "bite" a good faith contributor. Did you feel that my note was unfriendly to him or her in some way? --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all unfriendly, just that notability objections can be most disheartening. Please don't take anything I've said as a criticism of you. I'm just trying to strike a balance. As for the two sources, I felt "thejournal" gave just enough coverage to be non-trivial. The second link was this one, which seems to have gone missing in the final article... I'll add it in. GDallimore (Talk) 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't worried so much about your being overly critical of me, though. :) I am highly concerned with being civil, and sometimes something comes across as less friendly than intended. If there's a risk I come across that way, I'd like to know! The new source is not really applicable to notability, either, as it is not independent of the subject but an announcement by a business partner, I'm afraid. I do think it's inclusion is probably a good thing in the article, though. As long as someone is actively working on finding new sources, I don't feel like the tag is that important. Hopefully, more will be located that can more obviously meet that "widespread notability" thing. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←Hi. :) The reliability of the article isn't in question; the problem is that the coverage of this specific product is light. Generally speaking, notability of products is affirmed by widespread, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. It is the most substantial reference I see. I don't think that you need Burt's quoting that article, but I do think that the article would benefit from additional references to verify that non-trivial, widespread coverage exists. You don't necessarily need to look online for these. If this product has been reviewed in magazines or newspapers, that can also be indicated. We have a whole list of citation templates that can help you format those, here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Without the copyvio, there was insufficient material for the article to remain, which fits well within G12: "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving." If I were tagging a page of that sort, though, I'd leave a note at the talk page explaining that, and I would do it in a friendly and constructive manner in case the creator decided to address it. :) (Not that I'm suggesting you would do it uncivilly under any circumstances; what I mean is that your language would differ if you were communicating solely to the reviewing admin, and I think it's always good to keep in mind that creators and less experienced contributors who review the text may not understand it in that case.) I'm off to run an errand! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That guy created the same page on the Persian Wikipedia, using a direct copy/paste of the Persian version (I love how that rhymes :D ) of his biography on his website. I don't know a word in Persian, and Google's translator can't do Persian. So I just clicked on the interwiki link on WP:AN and made a post in English. I hope someone there can read it. Now I have a headache because Persian is written from right to left, so typing English is...... fun... And it took me six tries to figure out how to start a new section on their AN. Wow, I love English.... J.delanoygabsadds16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I know that right to left thing. Sometimes even pasting an article title at Articles for Translation here gets all munged up. :D I also know how disorienting it is how to drop into an unfamiliar wiki. I left a note at commons the other day, and it was similar but yet so different that it was a "through the looking glass" feeling. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you add a comment to his page after you used User:Moonriddengirl/carticle, so I added another parameter to the template to allow you to customize the ending, similar to how you can with the messages on WP:UTM. You can look at the template doc to see my changes. I also tested it in the sandbox, and added an explanation with it. Here is the version with my test in it. If you have any questions about it, just ask. Thanks again for your help. J.delanoygabsadds16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all. I love working with stuff like that, and your template gives me a good reason to mess around. Also, what were you talking about with the second part of your message? Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm afraid I don't know what you meant. :/ (feel free to reply here) J.delanoygabsadds18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Since you had edited the template recently, I presumed you were watching it. Should know better than to assume that, given how widely I contribute and how relatively little I watch! {{smile}} has had a strange addition recently. I don't know why it was placed there, but it seems to have been requested in April. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I dislike having a huge watchlist. Right now, I just watch the Huggle warning templates, the pages in my userspace, AN, ANI, and several admins' talk pages. (including yours, so I can stalk...) If I'm in a conversation with someone, I usually watchlist their talk page if they prefer that I reply there, but after the conversation is over, I just remove it. J.delanoygabsadds18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went on ahead and removed it. It seems to have been added without real consensus. I tend to stop stalking people after a while, too. I've got a list of articles I monitor for vandalism or other concerns. Currently, I have 508 pages on my watchlist, excluding talk pages. I'm thinking I need to do a cleanup soon. :D (Some of these are dead pages I watch against recreation.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it! I was going through the history, and while I did that, you removed it! On the subject of watchlists, I have only 84 pages watched (excluding talk pages), and if you take away all the Huggle templates, I only have 45! I guess that's kind of ironic, considering how much vandalism I fight, but it is also a testament to how powerful Huggle is. I wonder if Gurch realized that, with one stroke, he would forever change the balance of power between the good guys and the bad guys here. I mean, if there are 6 people huggling at once, they can stop >90% of vandalism no matter how bad it gets. Add the bots, Twinkle, VP, popups, and old-school fighters, I would say that less than 1% of vandalism makes it through if enough hugglers are on. J.delanoygabsadds18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) (I love what this conversation would seem like if you didn't know what WP:HUG redirects to...)[reply]
←LOL! Well, that's always the way it goes when jargon enters. :D I've never used huggle. I use Twinkle, and I used it quite a lot in the days before my adminship, when I focused a good bit more on vandalism. I don't know how huggle differs, really, but I gather it must, because I've caught glimpses of some controversy related to it. (Not sure what or why; I haven't paid close attention.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was working - anyways, Huggle is like Twinkle, but different. When Iridescent first tried Huggle, s/he said Twinkle is like Huggle the same way a spear is like a machine gun. I have to agree. Using Huggle, I made almost 40,000 edits in three months. I once made almost 1000 edits in a day. Iridescent once made 21 edits in one minute. It's really hard to describe what Huggle is. You pretty much have to try it to believe how powerful it is. It takes most people a minimum of two weeks to learn to control it, and some people never learn. If you want, I can tell you what went on with the controversy. J.delanoygabsadds23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(mostly copy/pasted from when someone else asked me about Huggle, with the links to the AN discussion provided by Iridescent)
Huggle started as an anti-vandalism tool that Gurch made for his own personal use. Apparently (I wasn't vandal-fighting at the time, but I have seen some old conversations...) people asked him how on earth he was reverting and warning so fast. When he told them, they apparently asked if they could use it, and he started distributing it around via email. I believe that other people than Gurch started showing up with Huggle between last December and the middle of last January, but I am not sure of the exact details. Gurch then left on extended wikibreak, and Huggle was distributed to trusted users upon request via email from other users who already had it. Thus the hugglers were a small group. This was the case when I first got Huggle near the end of February. For a while, this status quo remained in place. Then Gurch returned (as Gurchzilla at first, later he started using his Gurch account again) and started expanding Huggle's capabilities and, to some degree, its speed. I seem to remember a push to let Huggle go "live", that is, anyone who wanted to could use it, without having to download it, just like Twinkle.
Eventually, Huggle did go live, and many, many editors began using it. Unfortunately, it takes a steady mind and a lot of vandal-fighting experience to handle Huggle properly, and many of the new users simply were not experienced enough. It was bad. I mean, really bad. People were filing reports to AIV for trivial things like typing "hi" into a page, people reverted anything that even remotely resembled vandalism, even edits that were clearly not vandalism, like good-faith attempts to change American English spellings to British English spellings (honour instead of honor, yogurt instead of yoghurt, etc.). Eventually, it got bad enough that Gurch started a thread on the administrators' noticeboard to see if people wanted him to ban Huggle completely. It was eventually decided that the tool wasn't the problem, it was the inexperienced users who were misusing Huggle's power. Administrators were encouraged to swiftly deal with any abuse or misuse of the tool. (by blanking and protecting problem users' huggle.css) Recently, acting on the advice he got primarily from Iridescent, Gurch made it so that to be able to use Huggle, you have to have either +rollback or +sysop. That really got things under control for the most part, so Huggle is not nearly as big of a problem as it was.
Hi, Keeper! Thanks again for handling that AfD. :D I had no idea that the whole Huggle thing got so involved. Glad Iridescent and Gurch came up with a response to the problem! I probably saw it at AN at some point, but I tend to skim/skip stuff that draws a lot of attention (usually because it means somebody is already handling it--I'm drawn to "lonely" incidents). So, it's a speed thing, mostly, that makes it so powerful? --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculously fast! I only know this second hand, I'e never installed it myself. But what I've heard, it only takes 6 or so humans, using huggle, to revert 90% of vandalism that comes in. Profoundly effective. It is the tool that Wikipedia has been longing for, as we (collectively) have never been able to keep up with the vandals on our 2 million + articles. Profoundly effective! I'm very glad, by the way, that only editors that are in good standing, and +sysop or +rollback approved, are able to access Huggle. A much needed additiion to the script. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite grasp how it could go any faster than Twinkle. It seems like human limitations would factor in. But it must be so, or there wouldn't have been so much excitement. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on your side with that. I've never downloaded it, mostly because I'm terrified of it. I've seen it grossly abused, but 99% of the time, I've seen it be insanely faster/more effective than Twinkle. Keeping in mind that you can remove it if you don't like it, try it. I haven't yet. If you do, let me know? I'm at the same "deer in the headlights" moment that you are right now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It's really quite simple to use, I find that you just have to click a few buttons, you can't really mess up unless you revert content that is not vandalism... and I know you know what vandalism is! ;) Knowing what these buttons do is the main key IMO. I also believe it is so fast because it uses the recent changes feed with nearly no lag. (Compared to what MiszaBot does in the vandalism channel.) Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(about 10 e/c's) It's not that bad for an experienced user. What Huggle does is scans recent changes (or the recent changes IRC feed) and sends the diffs from IPs and user who are not on its whitelist to hugglers for review. So all we have to do is keep hitting the spacebar to scan recent changes for actual vandals. Reverting and warning vandals is as easy as hitting the "Q" key. It is not a hard to use, it is hard to master. You should be fine, because you have quite a bit of experience vandal-fighting with Twinkle, and (from what I can see) you are not really planning on using it a lot. If you do try it, make sure you go to System>Options and set Huggle to scan all the namespaces; by default it only scans the article space. J.delanoygabsadds01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will, Keeper. And, KOS, the distraction is welcome. I'm trying to track down when an image was removed from PUI in July of 2007, and their "records" at that time weren't always clear. Oi. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here, but seeing as I'm mentioned... I cannot disagree more with "If you do try it, make sure you go to System>Options and set Huggle to scan all the namespaces; by default it only scans the article space". Gurch set that as the default for a damn good reason; in my capacity as the unofficial Scourge of the Inappropriate Use of Automated Tools I've taken Hugglers' toys away from them more often for inappropriately reverting IP posts to talkpages, Help, sandboxes etc than for any other reason. If you're sure you're going to check every edit carefully, I'd agree that you should probably include templates and Wikipedia-space in the namespace list; anything else and you run the risk of issuing automated vandalism notices to good-faith new users who aren't quite sure what they're doing. – iridescent00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like excellent advice. If it's defaulted by Gurch, it's because he knows exactly what he's doing. If/when I ever try huggle, I'll be sure to heed this advice myself. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify (MRG & Keep, I know you understand, but this is for the benefit of your TPSs); if I go to George W. Bush and post "stupid asshole", that's vandalism and a {{uw-huggle2}} warning is appropriate; if I go to User talk:Keeper76 and post "stupid asshole", that might be uncivil, but it's not vandalism. – iridescent01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! People. You crack me up. :) I like the fact that Huggle allows you to leave other warnings, like test warnings. For me, the biggest drawback is that it's in its own window. I often like to evaluate the history of the article and the contribution history of the editor when I respond to vandalism. And I actually ducked out of the window altogether a couple of times to track something down and once to speedy delete a page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(this is mostly to Iridescent) The reason why I told MRG to change it to search all the namespaces is because I assumed that, being an admin and a very experienced user, she would not knee-jerk revert everything that seems remotely close to vandalism. I revert quite a bit of vandalism that is not in the article space. I am much more lenient on talk pages than articles, but get into the userspace or (heaven forbid) user talk space, and more than 75% of non-whitelisted edits are vandalism, usually retaliation for warnings. If you want me to remove my posting of the fact that Huggle does not search all namespaces by default. (Per WP:BEANS, in case the Kiddy Kabal finds this page) I will, but I fail to see why an experienced user (especially an admin) would have any problem controlling themselves on talk pages or userpages. Basically, the only time I revert a talk page (of any namespace except user talk) is when someone blanks/almost blanks the page or if they post random vulgarities/obscenities with no context. On user talk pages, I remove direct personal attacks/page blankings/almost blankings, but nothing else. MRG and Keeper would be fine using Huggle on full power. J.delanoygabsadds02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could see how it would be a problem with an inexperienced user--there is quite a sense of speed to it. I, however, would do my best not to revert anything that I would not revert in ordinary circumstances. :) Less, actually, since I couldn't easily view the history. The biggest problems I encountered was that one of the editors also using it was leaving no warnings, which disturbs me. I've had a look at his userpage, and I see that he's been requested to warn multiple times but persists in grandscale reversions without doing so. I'm not sure how that's handled.
I'm curious as to what Huggle does when a user is full-up on warnings. Does it prompt you to file at AIV? Does it automatically file on your behalf? I could look at the documentation, but I'm lazy and figure you know. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a user already has a level four warning, Huggle automatically files a report to AIV. (Here is an example. Huggle will sometimes extend the report if the vandal is reverted again after a final warning) I do not know what Huggle does if it detects the +sysop bit when it checks user rights. I think it prompts you to block, but from every admin I know who uses Huggle, I would not recommend blocking from within Huggle. You should probably hit "O" or click on the window icon next to the green navigation buttons and open the vandal's talk page to check things out before blocking. J.delanoygabsadds12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, most definitely I would not block from within Huggle. :) I don't even use Twinkle to delete pages. Thanks for the info. It's an interesting program. It certainly is powerful! I think if I'd had this when I first started fighting vandalism, though, I might never have become an administrator. My article building edits were hard to find by some responders even though (imho) there were plenty of them. With the speed granted by Huggle, the balance would have been even more skewed! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know what you mean. I probably have between 5000 and 7500 edits that are not reverts/warnings/AIV reports, but you would not be able to find them easily among my ~52000 total edits. I think that my next RFA (when/if it comes) will be a lot of fun :/ J.delanoygabsadds14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I recommend you make it easy on future evaluators by keeping a section for your substantial article contributions somewhere on your userpage? This will make things much easier. Trust me. (I eventually split mine off). --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. I only have one major "real" contribution to the mainspace (and it failed its GAN spectacularly). I have never liked writing, and I probably never will. Basically what I do here is fight vandalism and patrol the noticeboards. (and stalk people's talk pages :D ) People who do similar things have not done particularly well at RFA lately. J.delanoygabsadds19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess my only chance is if RFA-ers make an exception. If I did started writing a lot, I would only be doing it to sway opinion so that I could become an admin. (Who would I be kidding? Certainly not myself...) Like I said, I really don't like writing. The "notice" at the top of my userpage is, by and large, an accurate description of my mentality (although obviously some of the specifics are tongue-in-cheek). I just can't get "with" sitting down and writing. I correct typos/grammar if I see problems while randomly browsing, fix poor formatting, occasionally upload and add images, and once in a while, do some stub tagging on Special:Newpages, but that's about it. Even though improving articles would make this a better encyclopedia regardless of my personal motives, I don't want to pass an RFA based on a concerted attempt to pass an RFA. I'd rather fail based on my true self than pass based on a façade. I appreciate the advice, but I just don't think it's right to, quote, "become" an active writer just so I can pass an RFA, and then never write anything again. (because that is what would happen) Please don't take this as though I am brushing you off; reading the preview, that is what it seems like, but it is not intended to be like that :/ J.delanoygabsadds19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel brushed off. :) Let me say that I think there's nothing at all wrong with making it clear what you're volunteering to do and stating flatly that you are playing to your strengths. Every volunteer is valuable, and a volunteer who knows his abilities and lives up to his commitments is a lot better than one who mis-sells himself or promises other than he intends to deliver. I also believe that there is plenty of room in the janitor closet for non-article writers, as long as they understand and appreciate the qualities that make the project work. I certainly think you do.
That said, branching into other means of contributing to mainspace remains possible, even if writing is not your strength. That's why I suggested Category:Articles that need to be wikified first, as this doesn't require writing, but only the addition of [[ and ]] and changing html markup to wiki markup. :) Please don't feel criticized by that. I believe that vandalism fighting is in itself a valuable contribution to mainspace. Indeed, I think it's essential, as without it there's no quality control at all. I'm just responding to your note about "real" contributions to mainspace. There are other ways to contribute than to compose. And I would not suggest you do anything just for the sake of passing an RfA, but it's valid to demonstrate that concerns about preparation for the job do not apply and that you are, in fact, quite well rounded.
Thanks. I really appreciate your advice and your help with my various questions/requests. I'll think about it, and who knows? I may find another calling other than vandal-patrol. J.delanoygabsadds21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopkins
It's my impression that the data in the various logs is insufficient to reconstruct what you and i did on Hopkins (TV series), so i'm vague about my exact thrust, and am focused on my repeated impression that most eds ignore the template's directions (once before and once after my work, in this case). If you can mention anything unconstructive that i did (besides my futile attempt to inhibit another removal by leaving trash behind), and perhaps a tutorial for what an admin should do when the subsequent edits are substantial enuf for attribution to be meaningful, i'd be grateful. --Jerzy•t 05:38 & 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Based on your edit summary, I'm thinking perhaps you might have been very sleepy, because you lost me. :D (And I know the feeling. I'm up earlier than I want to be in my part of the world.) I'll take a look at the article and see if I can piece it together. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. That one. :) Most eds do indeed ignore the template's directions. I've been on a mission to clean WP:CP, and I see it misused more often than not. :/
The problem we ran into with that one is that the IP editor who established a copyvio clean article really just duplicated the one before the copyvio was introduced, here. Our contributors continue to own copyright to their material; they've just granted use of it so long as we acknowledge that the work is theirs. Because of that, we can't delete this one and then run that one, as we'd be in the strange position of violating copyright ourselves. And probably the only reason I know this is because I've worked a bit with merging articles, which has made me quite sensitive to the terms of GFDL.
In a case like that, it's possible to just delete all edits following the introduction of the copyright, as set out at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. As an admin, when you run into an unambiguous case like that, you don't even need to list it at WP:CP. The problem is that quite often people have built on the copyvio version. If there have been subsequent edits and the copyright violation can reasonably be cut out of the article, we can remove it and explain in edit summary what we've done. I also leave a warning to the contributor ({{uw-copyright}}) and place a note on the talk page. I've got a template I use for that purpose, since I've been doing a lot of these: User:Moonriddengirl/cclean. If you should ever want to, you'd be more than welcome to use it. :) The copyvio can remain in the article's history, as long as we remove it if the copyright holder requests. (Now I can't remember where that is. I wish Wikipedia had an index. :/ Oh, wait. Duh! It's right on the WP:CP page, in the yellow box: "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.")
Anyway, forgive me if I've linked the obvious, and if I'm unclear about something, please let me know. As I said, it's early, and I'm not on my full game yet myself. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is exactly the kind of, uh, remedial orientation, that i was hoping for. (Yellow box? How could i have missed a yellow box?? I'll go study it; what you say had seemed to me like a like a logical approach in view of GFDL, fair use, and the "well, you could-'a' said something" principle, but IANALP. I always hope for such a talisman, but usually dread to go looking for one in light of the baroque paths so often produced by our marvelous synergy of many eyeballs and benign neglect.) I surely don't need another project (let alone at this moment), but i have usually pursued likely copyvios at least to the point of verifying and tagging, and i think i'll now stop, uh, pretending (by tagging them) not to be one of those "admin" people that {{copyvio}} talks about. Just getting beyond slapping on an imposing tl that usually gets violated by editors and that admins, casually observed, seem to ignore, feels like a valuable step. Thanks again! --Jerzy•t17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eros Ramazzotti
Hi and sorry for not answering before. To be quite honest, I was here yesterday already but the page is a bit confusing as I didn't find any tab for "new section".. :) Anyway, the copyright problem is solved at least temporarily, the copied part was removed a while ago. Thanks for looking into it. JdeJ (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SJP Chat has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, I saw you had deleted this for licensing problems. In the deleted version, were there any useful external sources? If so, would you mind dropping the URLs/books/etc on my talk? Thanks! rootology (T) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page was originally tagged by Corensearchbot as a suspected copyvio of http://www.obnoxiouslisteners.com/about. I looked at the link, and other than the intro, the page was a direct copy/paste. Was there enough similarity there for me to tag it as db-copyvio rather than db-web, as it ended up being tagged? What is the "threshold" where an article becomes a copyvio rather than a notability problem? J.delanoygabsadds22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question to ask is whether there's non-infringing content on the page worth keeping. In this case, there's not. I would have deleted it as a "blatant copyright infringement and non-notable web." This is particularly important because (a) it warns administrators not to userfy on request, and (b) it warns creators that both of these were serious problems. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are nearing 48 hours since posting at the template talks, with only positive feed back. I would say your are free to go play and when you are ready, make the changes live. Jeepday (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have more faith in me than I do,then. My first effort didn't work, but once I figured out where to put the <div id="copyvio" style="display:none;">, it came up okay. When I start seeing strings of text like "div id" and "style=", I break out in hives. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mda pic
Hi I have done what you asked me to do, sorry i keep making the same mistake time and again I always put own image because I find it easier but ill try not to make the same mistake again. Also do I need to put ive photshopped the image? Thanks
History of Calintaan
Hello,
Thanks for the comments and the edits on the History of Calintaan. We highly appreciate it.
Allow me to explain the "we" in the previous sentence. We are a group of Occidental Mindoro history enthusiasts. We are based in different parts of the Philippines. One member of our group, Mr. Rudy Candelario, did painstaking research on the history of our province (Occidental Mindoro) and his research was published by the Hiyas Press, Inc. and copyrighted by the Occidental Mindoro Historical Society (OMHS), to which he is a member.
The OMHS has become inactive. We, however, are continuing what it has started. One of the things we are doing is to disseminate the research of Mr. Candelario via the net. The website where you found a somewhat similar article on Calintaan, belongs to our group. We, however, think that his research will get more widely read if we place it in Wikipedia. He, of course, has agreed to this.
I now understand that this (uploading Mr Candelario's work in Wikipedia) violates Wikipedia's policy on notability, as it is a product of original research. I now understand that for us to be able to upload Mr Candelario's work on the history of our province, we have to cite his work (meaning, we write another article quoting his published work).
I have read Wikipedia's policy on "reliable sources." And to my understanding, Mr Candelario's work is a reliable source, having been published by a notable group in our province. His research is also being used by scholars who are doing post-graduate courses on subjects related to our province. But I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
We would wait for your comments before proceeding with our next steps.
Thank you for your note. There are a couple of problems here that need to be addressed. The first is probably the easiest: in order to use any of the language directly from Mr. Candelario's work, we need verification of permission. This is because Wikipedia does not require proof of identity on account creation, and so we need external proof. This is simple to resolve if the page belongs to your group, as all you need to do is put a note on your website indicating that the text is released according to the terms of the GNU free documentation license. It's important that your note specify that it is released by that license (abbreviated GFDL) or into public domain because when you place text on Wikipedia, you are giving authority to our readers to use or change it in any way they place, including selling it, so long as they give you credit. (That means that Mr. Candelario's work could be put into a book and sold by somebody else, but they could not claim that the work was theirs. They don't have to give Mr. Candelario any of the money they make from selling this information, but they do have to acknowledge him.)
The second concern, as you mention, is that unless Mr. Candelario's work is published, it constitutes original research and is not verifiable by our readers. Since anybody can add material to Wikipedia, the only way that we can try to assure our readers that what they are reading is correct is if we give them exact information necessary to trace down the sources and read them for themselves. No matter how good a researcher he may be (and he certainly seems thorough), we aren't able to verify his work. If Mr. Candelario's work is first published by somebody else--like a magazine or a publishing house that has a reputation for fact checking--then we could incorporate his research without any problem. The question here would be whether your group constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition: " Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Is there anything we could use to verify that your group meets this definition?
The third problem is a relatively minor one, and it relates to your use of the term "we". :) Wikipedia has a one-user, one-account policy. When you have an account that is created to represent a group, you have what we call a "role account". You can read more about those at the Wikimedia page here. Please consider assigning one individual to this account and, if necessary, registering additional accounts for other members of your group. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
